Re: Handling of "malware" in Debian

On 2016-11-10 09:45, Paul Wise wrote: > My intuition says that there are users who don't have apt-listchanges > installed or don't read the NEWS files. The most likely place folks > will see the notification is in the UI of the malware package itself. This is true. OTOH, if the WOT UI is gone,

Re: Handling of "malware" in Debian

On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 16:17 +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Would NEWS.Debian be sufficient? My intuition says that there are users who don't have apt-listchanges installed or don't read the NEWS files. The most likely place folks will see the notification is in the UI of the malware package

Re: Handling of "malware" in Debian

On 2016-11-09 18:44, Holger Levsen wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 07:14:45PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: If users of testing or unstable have the malware installed now and the package gets removed from the archive, users are left with the malware, right? yes That's why I thought about

Re: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Handling of "malware" in Debian

W. Martin Borgert: > On 2016-11-09 19:34, Ximin Luo wrote: >> Context for the new list you added, please? > > #842939 > > Is it OK, if I do the upload? I'm in the team, but David Prévot > did previous uploads. > Yes, go ahead and do the upload, it's what team maintenance is for :) You can

Re: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Handling of "malware" in Debian

On 2016-11-09 19:34, Ximin Luo wrote: > Context for the new list you added, please? #842939 Is it OK, if I do the upload? I'm in the team, but David Prévot did previous uploads. Cheers

Re: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Handling of "malware" in Debian

Holger Levsen: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:17:58PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >> Would NEWS.Debian be sufficient? > > I think so. And I also think this should be done. > > and, who's gonna file the RM bug for unstable? > Context for the new list you added, please? -- GPG:

Re: Handling of "malware" in Debian

Quoting Holger Levsen : i'm not sure about the releasing with stretch part. Maybe it would be better to have the updated, empty package in stretch in 5plusX days and then remove it before the release, say on January 1st. Ah, OK. Understood. Well, maybe As Short As

Re: Handling of "malware" in Debian

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 07:14:45PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > If users of testing or unstable have the malware installed now and > the package gets removed from the archive, users are left with the > malware, right? yes > That's why I thought about uploading an empty package to unstable,

Re: Handling of "malware" in Debian

Quoting Holger Levsen : I think so. And I also think this should be done. and, who's gonna file the RM bug for unstable? I would RM for buster, because users of stretch might already be affected.

Re: Handling of "malware" in Debian

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:17:58PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Would NEWS.Debian be sufficient? I think so. And I also think this should be done. and, who's gonna file the RM bug for unstable? -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Handling of "malware" in Debian

Quoting Paul Wise : A new empty package would be better than just removing it but the user would not get any notification about why the functionality is gone nor any information about the privacy violations they were subject to. Would NEWS.Debian be sufficient?

Handling of "malware" in Debian

Hi, because of the WOT[*] incident, I wonder how Debian should handle malware packages in favour of our users. The current scheme is to remove the offending package from stable and go along. With unattended-upgrades or other automatic upgrade schemes, such packages would remain on many systems